Confusing standoff over the FATCA Bill

If my memory serves me correctly, Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley some time ago agreed to convene a joint select committee (JSC) of the Parliament for the purpose of thrashing out contentious issues written into the Bill.

A few weeks following his stated agreement to convene such a committee, he issued a statement in which he reneged on his prior decision. It is Rowley’s change of heart that leaves me confused.

The Attorney General has told the nation that both his administration and the Bankers Association felt there was no need to convene such a committee. AG Faris Al-Rawi’s assertion merely restates the PNM Government’s position which is well known to every citizen while it provides no rationale.

There must be a good reason for his Government’s position, but he has not articulated it. The Government has a responsibility to the population to clearly articulate the reasoning that informs its present position since its refusal to convene a committee of experts to scrutinise the requirements of that Bill represents the reversal of its original position.

On the other hand, the Bankers Association’s position on the FATCA legislation has been consistently one of support. Bankers in this country have been consistent and unanimous in their support for the proposed legislation.

Their position is based on enlightened self-interest. That association understandably seeks its best interests first and understandably those interests may or may not be aligned with what is best for the ordinary man.

I can assert that the persistent call for its passage is not in the best interest of anyone residing in this country who is an “accidental” US citizen with business interests outside that country and who happens to run a profitable enterprise. Such a person must be wondering why he should have to remit taxes to this Government as well as to the US Treasury.

Ordinary Trinidadians must also be wondering why a government of this country — a sovereign State — in the midst of a contracting economy should seek to borrow US$40 million simply to “reorganise” our BIR so as to be in obedience to the US Treasury’s unreasonable attempt to coerce compliance with its hegemonic demands.

The BATT understandably seeks to protect the interests of the banks, the global banking network and those of its clients — the wealthiest of them — by not exposing them, or rather their wealth, to any untoward risk. And although its position might not be entirely palatable, it is understandable. Its requirement for accountability is largely fiduciary.

That the Government has seen it fit to flip-flop on its decision- making makes it imperative that it gives a cogent reason for its change of heart. Its contract with the citizens goes beyond fiduciary.

The Government’s first concern is the citizens of the republic.

Should any adverse outcome result from this non-indigenous law, its impact would be first upon ordinary people. The banks’ wealth and that of their clients enjoy the protection of the State, both local and foreign.

The nonsense that Al-Rawi continues to utter by way of attempting to offer a reason for his Government’s change of heart on the need for a JSC is intellectually insulting and merely serves to deepen the prevailing mistrust for the present opaque and bungling PNM administration.

Steve Smith via email